Editor -- Why would The Chronicle ask Americans to choose to die via cancer or a bullet? That's about all the logic there is to their comparison of Osama bin Laden to Mexican dishwashers (Editorial, "Focus on the real enemy," Aug. 5). Americans thoughtfully and rightfully refute either choice.

America's borders should be secure. Intruders are not welcome unless we choose to invite them in.

That dishwasher isn't as cheap as you think. Who pays his medical bills when he gets sick? He doesn't have the money. Who pays for his children to go to school? Who pays for the cost of the blight in neighborhoods as low wage, uneducated people who don't speak English overcrowd the area? Who pays court costs, public defender costs and prison guards when the dishwasher turns to criminal activity to supplement his slave wages? That dishwasher costs the American taxpayers a lot of money.

While The Chronicle doesn't mind keeping slaves, the cost to the rest of us is enormous.

PANDORA'S BOX

Editor -- Sheer madness may seem a valid explanation for why the White House is pushing for an Iraq invasion. Our Middle East allies oppose it. Our military brass has advised against it. And there is no evidence of Iraq involvement in recent terrorist acts.

Meanwhile, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict worsens, our economy is in tatters, our citizens are losing their retirement savings and millions of our children live in poverty. We clearly have pressing problems that we should be addressing now, rather than opening this potential Pandora's box.

Anyone who thinks that it would be a good idea to send American troops to Iraq should first pay a visit to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington for a sobering reminder of the consequences of faulty presidential leadership.

I suggest two possible reasons for the administration's desire to invade Iraq. First, to secure Iraqi oil fields to satisfy American fuel demands. Second, the Freudian desires of a son to rectify the failings of his father.

KURT HOWARD

San Rafael

IT'S ABOUT TAXES

Editor -- After pondering all the reasons being put forth for invading Iraq,

this one started to rise to the top: maybe it's a way to raise taxes with some political cover. Can't admit the cut was too big, can't renege - but who could vote against raising taxes to fight evil? There is a method to the madness after all.

SIOBHAN RUCK

San Francisco

TRY TRUTH - IT SELLS

Editor -- I take issue with your editorial treatment of the recent policy differences between Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman (Editorial, "The Al and Joe routine," Aug. 7). The disaster known as election 2000 was greatly influenced by just this sort of news "coverage." Had our media paid as much attention to the vast differences in policy between the candidates rather than focusing as they did on the superficial "horse race" aspects of the debate, our electorate would have had the tools to make an informed choice.

Instead the media told us about Al's new suits and sweaters and that Dubya is a "nice" guy with cute nicknames for everybody on the plane . . . what garbage. Cover the speeches, ignore the spin, focus on the meat and leave the parsley on the plate. The public needs the print media to delve into issues, not mimic the "news" on the cable outlets or "talk" radio. Truth really does sell newspapers.

R. GREGG JOHNSON

San Jose

GORE'S SNAKE OIL

Editor -- I'm sure Al Gore will thank you for giving him a free campaign advertisement (Open Forum, "For the benefit of the many or the few," Aug. 6), but most of us will still choose to not buy his snake oil.

Gore claims to not be anti-business, yet he refers to a tax cut as "tax giveaways." Just so Mr. Gore is clear on the subject, taxes are government takeaways. That is our money being taken by the government and Mr. Gore seems to believe that we should have less while the government has more. Wrong.

Furthermore, Mr. Gore bemoans the corporate accounting scandals, yet he refuses to acknowledge that these scandals took place under his administration and were only uncovered and dealt with under President Bush's administration.

MARC GREENDORFER

Oakland

BRUTE FORCE

Editor -- With all the recent media coverage of male violence against girl children, teenage girls and adult women, there has been a lot of press about the ingenuity and efficiency of the law enforcement agencies in responding to this crisis of violence.

A plethora of experts have informed the public to the gills about criminals and crime, but no one has asked one very important question. Why does the human male violate, harm and kill the human female with such frequency and apparent fervor?

No one is mentioning that rape is a hate crime and a pure act of terrorism. No one is asking about the long-term consequences that male brute force against women has for humanity and the world in general.

As a woman, I find it oppressive to watch other females being eternally brutalized by men. Neither is there much comfort or hope in knowing law enforcement agencies are focusing on apprehending individual offenders, while not even questioning or examining the misogyny that is behind this seemingly unending stream of mayhem and murder.

SUZY COFFEE

Manton (Shasta County)

FEMALE HORRORS

Editor -- I just have to respond to Carol Delaney's ridiculous accusations and call to arms directed toward men in her letter of Aug. 5. She mentions the "horrible abductions and murders of children and sexual abuse of children by priests." How convenient to only pick a minority of the crimes committed against children. She decided that men have failed us by not taking on this problem as their own.

If she is so worried about children, what has she done lately about the fact that most child abuse is committed by female caregivers? What is she doing about the fact that half of domestic violence is perpetrated by women against men? We should all care about horrible crimes and we shouldn't consider ourselves exempt from the task by choosing not to observe that our gender is also capable of horrors.

DEBORAH WATKINS

Domestic violence educator

Fort Worth, Texas

RIODAN WRITE-IN

Editor -- Things are going so badly for Bill Simon that he couldn't get elected governor of the Cayman Islands. Sensing this, Debra J. Saunders gamely suggests a write-in campaign for Bill Jones. Well, maybe for mayor of Fresno ("Bill Simon should bow out," Aug. 2).

But a Richard Riordan write-in campaign for governor -- now that would make Gov. Gray Davis' hair spike up like a peacock's feathers in Marin. Of course, Riordan has enough coin to bankroll a write-in campaign all by himself with enough left over to buy Sausalito.

For the sake of sheer political intrigue, I suggest a statewide poll on a Davis-Riordan-Simon race. At least it would inject a little mischief into a boring campaign.

BOB RYAN

San Francisco

TASTEFUL RETRIEVER

Editor -- I never realized letters to the editor could generate action so quickly! Thanks so much for delivering to my East Salinas home once again. I'm very grateful.

A funny thing. In the morning, my golden retriever goes out and brings me the Chron . . . leaving the Monterey Herald for me to pick up. Everybody's a critic. At least she has wonderful taste.